再看万斯布罗对《古兰经》ān对符问题的看法

IF 0.2 0 RELIGION
T. Moqbel
{"title":"再看万斯布罗对《古兰经》ān对符问题的看法","authors":"T. Moqbel","doi":"10.1163/22321969-12340118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe occurrence of variant versions of the same story is not uncommon in the Qurʾān. In response to this phenomenon, different approaches have been developed; one of which was Wansbrough’s variant traditions hypothesis. The hypothesis, which emerged mainly from an analysis of three accounts of the prophet Shuʿayb’s story in the Qurʾān, posits that the different tellings of the same story existed as independent pericopes that later found their way into the text of the Qurʾān, a claim that has many implications on the authorship and composition of the Qurʾān. Consequently, the reactions to this hypothesis were varied. In this paper, I present one of the critiques to the hypothesis, that of Stewart. Then, I employ elements of textual criticism to provide further ways for viewing the variant traditions. I do this by drawing attention to empirical evidence from the Near East, pre-Islamic poetry, orality theory, and to some of the internal characteristics of the Qurʾān. The general conclusion is neither surprising nor new: Wansbrough’s findings regarding the genealogy of the variant traditions and the authorship of the Qurʾān are far from self-evident.","PeriodicalId":40915,"journal":{"name":"Al-Bayan-Journal of Quran and Hadith Studies","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Wansbrough’s Perspective on the Qurʾān’s Synoptic Problem\",\"authors\":\"T. Moqbel\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22321969-12340118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe occurrence of variant versions of the same story is not uncommon in the Qurʾān. In response to this phenomenon, different approaches have been developed; one of which was Wansbrough’s variant traditions hypothesis. The hypothesis, which emerged mainly from an analysis of three accounts of the prophet Shuʿayb’s story in the Qurʾān, posits that the different tellings of the same story existed as independent pericopes that later found their way into the text of the Qurʾān, a claim that has many implications on the authorship and composition of the Qurʾān. Consequently, the reactions to this hypothesis were varied. In this paper, I present one of the critiques to the hypothesis, that of Stewart. Then, I employ elements of textual criticism to provide further ways for viewing the variant traditions. I do this by drawing attention to empirical evidence from the Near East, pre-Islamic poetry, orality theory, and to some of the internal characteristics of the Qurʾān. The general conclusion is neither surprising nor new: Wansbrough’s findings regarding the genealogy of the variant traditions and the authorship of the Qurʾān are far from self-evident.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Al-Bayan-Journal of Quran and Hadith Studies\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Al-Bayan-Journal of Quran and Hadith Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22321969-12340118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al-Bayan-Journal of Quran and Hadith Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22321969-12340118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

同一故事的不同版本在古兰经ān中并不罕见。针对这一现象,已经制定了不同的方法;其中之一是万斯布罗的变异传统假说。这一假说主要来自对古兰经ān中先知舒·伊卜故事的三种叙述的分析,它假定同一故事的不同叙述以独立的方式存在,后来在古兰经ān的文本中找到了自己的方式,这一说法对古兰经ān的作者和组成有许多暗示。因此,对这一假设的反应各不相同。在本文中,我提出了对这一假设的批评之一,即斯图尔特的批评。然后,我使用文本批评的元素来提供进一步观察不同传统的方法。为了做到这一点,我将注意力集中在近东的经验证据、前伊斯兰诗歌、口述理论以及《古兰经》ān的一些内在特征上。总的结论既不令人惊讶也不新鲜:万斯布罗关于不同传统的宗谱和《古兰经ān》作者的发现远非不言自明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting Wansbrough’s Perspective on the Qurʾān’s Synoptic Problem
The occurrence of variant versions of the same story is not uncommon in the Qurʾān. In response to this phenomenon, different approaches have been developed; one of which was Wansbrough’s variant traditions hypothesis. The hypothesis, which emerged mainly from an analysis of three accounts of the prophet Shuʿayb’s story in the Qurʾān, posits that the different tellings of the same story existed as independent pericopes that later found their way into the text of the Qurʾān, a claim that has many implications on the authorship and composition of the Qurʾān. Consequently, the reactions to this hypothesis were varied. In this paper, I present one of the critiques to the hypothesis, that of Stewart. Then, I employ elements of textual criticism to provide further ways for viewing the variant traditions. I do this by drawing attention to empirical evidence from the Near East, pre-Islamic poetry, orality theory, and to some of the internal characteristics of the Qurʾān. The general conclusion is neither surprising nor new: Wansbrough’s findings regarding the genealogy of the variant traditions and the authorship of the Qurʾān are far from self-evident.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信